{"id":764,"date":"2016-03-24T09:35:46","date_gmt":"2016-03-24T09:35:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/?p=764"},"modified":"2016-03-24T09:35:46","modified_gmt":"2016-03-24T09:35:46","slug":"the-language-of-the-inscriptions-of-the-sinaia-tablets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/the-language-of-the-inscriptions-of-the-sinaia-tablets\/","title":{"rendered":"THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE SINAIA TABLETS(I)"},"content":{"rendered":"

There were many controversies regarding the origin and authenticity of Sinaia Tablets.\u00a0Their odyssey is well known in Romania.\u00a0Some researchers consider that the original tablets\u00a0 were made of gold, but there were melted and the gold was used to build the Pelesh Castle of\u00a0 King Carol I, on the Prahova Valley on the southern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, not before they made lead copies. Everything was done with no publicity and the copies were thrown in the\u00a0 basement of the\u00a0 History Museum, in Bucharest. In short time, their real story was forgotten and the next generations of historians considered that they were fakes made in secret by either the linguist Bogdan P. Hasdeu or by the historian Nicolae Densusianu. Needless to say that such hypotheses are totally absurd. In the last few decades, more and more researchers, including myself considered them as genuine copies of the gold originals, since the language of the inscriptions is an authentic language.\u00a0The inscriptions are written in Thraco-Dacian language, perhaps in a certain dialect (or perhaps a few different dialects), a \u2018standard\u2019 language used primarily in writing at the time. In fact, one may speak of a history of writing in the language of our ancestors, since certain tablets are written in a mysterious alphabet (maybe a syllabic writing) much older, but the researchers failed to issue any opinion about them.\u00a0It should be added that a few tablets have two texts in two different alphabets.\u00a0The two texts appear to convey the same message in two different scripts, and most probably two different language varieties: a sort of \u2018Rosetta Stone\u2019. Furthermore some tablets are written in some different scripts and remain to these days completely cryptic. On the other hand, most of the inscriptions are written in an alphabet similar to the Greek alphabet and a few more signs for affricate sounds.<\/p>\n

Given these details, in what follows I will do an etymological analysis of the words of inscriptions as they were identified by Eugen Nicolaescu in his book Vorbele din Plumb<\/em>, published at Printech, Bucharest, 2014.\u00a0In my opinion, Mr. Nicolaescu did a much better job than his predecessors.\u00a0In fact, the language resembles both Latin and Italic languages, but it is especially closer to Romanian.\u00a0Out of more than 1,000 lexical items whose form and meaning are considered by the author as being correctly identified, the overwhelming majority have equivalent in modern Romanian and often, and in Latin, Italic or other Indo-European languages.<\/p>\n

I will discuss all the lexical items after they were grouped into semantic categories, 336 such title-words. For most of them, there are descendants in modern Romanian, many considered by the official linguistic academia as being either of Latin, Slavic or other origin.\u00a0However, I must add that in the etymological dictionary of the Romanian language (DELR, 2008) I argue that the Thraco-Dacian language along with its sister Illyrian language were closely related to Italic languages. The hypothesis becomes abundantly clear from lexicographical material analyzed in this dictionary.\u00a0In addition, I have shown that a good share of the main vocabulary of Romanian language has cognates not only to Latin, but also in many other Indo-European languages, since the main vocabulary is best preserved in any language. In this small Thrace-Dacian etymological dictionary the words are grouped by grammatical categories also, namely: verbs, nouns, numerals, article (definite and indefinite), conjunctions, prepositions and one interjection as well.<\/p>\n

In many such words, letter o<\/em>, in the initial position (before a nasal) or final position, it was read\u00a0 \u0103<\/em> (a central mid-vowel similar to a schwa) which in today\u2019s Romanian turned into \u00ee<\/em> (a high mid-vowel) in initial position or remain \u0103<\/em>, in final position.\u00a0The two sounds are in fact very close, as the sound o<\/em> is only the round variant of \u0103<\/em>, a fact well understood by Dacian scribes and, therefore, they\u00a0 do not feel the need to invent a new sign for this\u00a0sound.\u00a0I suppose also that there are some abbreviations, as happens in any inscriptions, or copyist errors.\u00a0The same word may appear in slightly different forms, denoting that the texts were written in different places (or dialects) and at different historical times.\u00a0There are different word endings and they seem to be case endings most of the time.\u00a0Many nouns appear only in singular forms, especially ethnonyms or other nouns, although they are plural forms also, marked by endings typical to Romanian plural or other Romance and\u00a0 Indo-European languages.\u00a0When they appear in the plural, I discuss them (cf. avendu<\/em>, haben<\/em>, dorindu<\/em>).\u00a0Most of the time, verb are in the present tense (historical\u00a0 present tense), some forms of perfect (equivalent of simple perfect of modern Romanian), similar to Latin perfect, but apparently a few forms of future tense.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there is strong evidence that the Dacian language had definite article, very similar to the current Romanian one and it is generally post-posed as in modern Romanian, unlike all other Romance languages. There are a few instances when it is\u00a0 pre-posed, especially in the genitive case, also similar to modern Romanian. Latin has not any kind of article: definite or indefinite. Out of\u00a0 Italic languages only Etruscan has (pre-posed)\u00a0 definite article.\u00a0It has long been believed that Etruscan was a strange language, with no particular lineage or related languages, therefore remained undeciphered.\u00a0Despite all these false assumptions, American researcher Mel Copeland in his Introduction<\/em> to the Etruscan language (academia.edu<\/a>) amply proves that Etruscan was an Italic language similar to Latin and it was widely spoken in a territory that includes 12\u00a0cities of Italic peninsula. It seems to have been the second (as number of native speakers) after Osco-Umbrian language. Copelnad’s Etruscan glossary consists of over 2000 words to which I found about 300 Romanian cognates.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Thraco-Dacian language did not disappear, but it lives in Romanian language of today.\u00a0Besides the definite and indefinite article, there are documented almost all numerals from 1 to 10 (except for four, five and eight) and all resemble those of modern Romanian, and several other numerals discussed in turn.\u00a0There are also a few (not many) Greek and Latin\u00a0 loanwords which will be discussed as well.\u00a0There are a few Dacian words which were not preserved in Romanian, but I found cognates in other Indo-European languages.\u00a0In the Argument<\/em> (Introduction) to\u00a0 Etymological Dictionary of Romanian Language (DELR), I have shown that only 14% of Romanian language vocabulary has correspondents in Latin and Romance languages, making a total of about 700 title-words, although there are only about 400 correspondents in classical Latin.\u00a0Therefore remained a very small number of Romanian words from the 14% that do not have equivalent forms attested in Sinaia Tablets texts.\u00a0Note also that text only deals with certain areas of Dacian people life, such as political, military or religious.<\/p>\n

Finally, we hope that this small etymological dictionary, in conjunction with Etymological Dictionary of the Romanian Language bring irrefutable proofs that the Romanian language is, in fact, the modern version of the Thraco-Dacian language.<\/p>\n

A SMALL THRACO-DACIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY<\/p>\n

The first part: the verb<\/p>\n

I will start with the verbs \u2018to be\u2019 and \u2018to have\u2019 since they the most important verbs in any language, but all other are listed in alphabetical order.<\/p>\n

1.The verb to be<\/em> occurs in several forms: fi<\/em> \u2018to be\u2019 (079, 092, 107-2) (cf. Romanian a fi<\/strong> \u2018to be\u2019), fu<\/em> (fio, fiu, fo, foe) \u2018it was, they were, be\u2019 (007, 045,\u00a0065, 069, 072, 092, 096, 106, 107, 109, 122, 127), fu<\/em> \u2018let it be, it was, they were\u2019 ((015, 076, 116, 130-2) (cf. Romanian fu<\/strong> \u2018he\/she\/it was\u2019) , da hie<\/em> \u2018to be, let it be\u2019 (cf. Romanian s\u0103 fie<\/strong> \u201cto be, let it be\u201d and simo<\/em> \u2018let it be\u2019 or fu<\/em>, fue<\/em> \u2018as being, it was\/they were\u2019, ese<\/em>, eso<\/em> \u2018will be, let it be, is\u2019 (018), hindu<\/em> (hiindu, fiindu) \u2018being\u2019 (present participle) (002, 009) (cf. Romanian fiind <\/strong>\/ hiindu<\/strong> \u2018being\u2019 (pr. part.)), ere<\/em>, erio<\/em>, eru<\/em> \u2018let it be, being\u2019 (002, 127) (cf. Romanian root of imperfect tense er<\/em>-), ese<\/em>, eso<\/em> \u2018he will be, he\/it is\u2019 (118), saro<\/em> \u2018I was\u2019 (003), se<\/em> \u2018I am\u2019\u00a0(042) (cf. Romanian (eu) \u00ees<\/strong> \u2018I am\u2019), seni<\/em> \u2018they are\u2019 (III, pl.) (cf. Romanian (ei) s\u00e2nt <\/strong>\u2018id\u2019) seo<\/em> \u2018it was\u2019 (003), seri<\/em>, serio<\/em> (seru, seriu) \u2018they were\u2019 (009, 042), seu<\/em> \u2018it will be\u2019 (119)\u00a0, seu<\/em> \u2018they were\u2019 (auxiliary to be translatable by to be) sia<\/em> \u2018being\u2019 (107), sie <\/em>(si) \u2018let it be, been\u2019 (012, 015, 069, 084, 130), sio<\/em>, siu \u2018<\/em>it was, being\u2019 (001, 022, 062, 091, 106, 107, 121, 122, 126, 127), siu<\/em> \u2018it was\u2019 (008), so <\/em>\u2018it was, thus\u2019 (007, 069, 079, 080, 118, 124, 127, 128), so feu \u2018<\/em>what it was\u2019 (076), so<\/em>, su<\/em>, sue \u2018<\/em>to be, will be, it was, been\/done, be (that …), there are, as so were\u2019 (010, 025, 028, 025, 045, 052-2, 062, 065, 069, 076, 079\u00a0-5, 084, 109-6, 111, 113, 115, 116-2, 119, 123-2, 124, 126, 130-2, 134), soa<\/em> \u2018it will be\u2019 ((130).<\/p>\n

Different forms of the verb \u2018to be\u2019<\/em> occur\u00a0over 100 times on the Sinaia tablets’ texts, as a few different roots., all found in modern Romanian.\u00a0First, fi<\/em>, fu<\/em>, fiind<\/em> etc. are equivalent to Latin fio, fieri \u2018to be\u2019 which are considered to be the roots of\u00a0 similar Romanian forms. However,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 close forms are found in other Italic languages: cf. Oscan\u00a0fiiet<\/em> (pers. III, pl.), Umbrian fuia<\/em> (pers. III, sg.) fuiest<\/em> (pers. III, sg, future).\u00a0All these forms derived form PIE * bheu<\/strong>– \u2018to grow, to be\u2019 (IEW, 146).\u00a0This root is found in all Indo-European language groups (for details, see DELR,\u00a0 fi<\/strong>).\u00a0The forms ero, erio, eso<\/em> have also similar forms in Latin, Romance languages, including Romanian.\u00a0The roots si<\/em>-, se-<\/em>, so<\/em>-, su<\/em>– appear in numerous verbal forms, more numerous than in modern Romanian, also with cognates in Latin and Romance languages, especially Italian.\u00a0In Romanian the root s<\/em>– (I) is found in (eu) \u00ees<\/strong> \u2018(I) am\u2019 and also in s\u00e2nt<\/strong>-, –em<\/strong>, –e\u021bi<\/strong>,\u00a0 –\u00d8<\/strong> \u2018(we) are, (you) are, (they) are\u2019.<\/p>\n

2.The verb \u2018to have\u2019<\/em> is also present in the texts of the Sinaia tablets, as au<\/em> \u2018(they) have, had have\u2019 (cf. Romanian au \u2018id\u2019), and avendu<\/em> \u2018(they) have, (they) hold\u2019 (III, pl.).\u00a0The form avendu<\/em> is the form of the third person plural, present tense of the verb \u2018to have<\/em>\u2019, where, ending –endu<\/em> is almost identical to ending Latin equivalent of hab-ent<\/em> (III, pl). The form au <\/em>is identical in modern Romanian. The verb \u2018to<\/em> have\u2019<\/em> is attested also as haben \u2018<\/em>(they) hold, (they) have\u2019 which proves that the texts were written in different dialects or different historical language varieties.\u00a0The explanation is that they were written originally in different places and at different historical moments. This is fully proved by the existence of Rosetta Stone style inscriptions, as shown above.\u00a0The same root of the verb is attested as well in the Illyrian expression (a curse) \u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u00a0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2<\/em> ‘vipers you have!’ (in Hesychius), where \u03ac\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2<\/em> is the form of the second person singular, very close to the old Romanian aibi<\/strong> \u2018(you) have\u2019 (II, sg.). The root aib<\/em>– is still present in Romanian as in s\u0103 aib\u0103 \u2018l<\/strong>et him (her) have\u2019. The \u00a0Latin correspondent form habies<\/em> \u2018(you) have\u2019 (II, sg.) (habeo<\/em>, habere<\/em>) is also similar. One may notice that Romanian verb a avea<\/strong> \u2018to have\u2019 is very close to the Thraco-Dacian (and Illyrian) forms and it is not of Latin origin (cf. DELR, avea<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

3.accendiu<\/em> (ascendo) \u2018promoting, going up (to)\u2019 (005, -2, 013-2, 062, 065, 069, 079, 080, 092, 106, 113, 119, 124). This verb did not survive into modern Romanian.\u00a0It is almost identical to Latin as-cendo<\/em> \u2018(I) climb, to ascend, ascend\u2019, (cf. descendo) < scando<\/em> \u2018to climb\u2019.\u00a0The verb asendi<\/em> (013) \u2018climbed (pl.)\u2019 derives from the same root.\u00a0These verbal forms have originate from PIE *skend<\/strong>-\/ *sknd<\/strong>– \u2018to jump (up) to climb\u2019 (de Vaan, 542-43).<\/p>\n

All these forms derive from PIE *skend<\/strong>-\/*sknd<\/strong>– with cognates in Celtic languages (cf. Proto-Celtic *kand<\/em>–e<\/em> \/o<\/em>-) and Sanskrit\u00a0skandati<\/em> \u2018to jump\u2019 (EDL 542).<\/p>\n

4.The verb adeuge<\/em> \u2018added to, additional\u2019 is preserved in Romanian, but it is considered of Latin origin, although it was seldom used in Latin.\u00a0The verb addere<\/em> \u2018to gather, to add\u2019 was much more usual, a derivative of do<\/em> \u2018to put\u2019, prefix by preposition ad<\/em>.\u00a0In addition, the origin Latin adaugere<\/em> remains unknown.\u00a0I have to mention that this verb is not in any Romance language, except Romanian language.\u00a0Thus one may assume that Latin borrowed it from Thraco-Dacian or Illyrian which was a closely related language (or dialect) of Thraco-Dacian. Such examples explains many of the \u2018mysteries\u2019 of so-called Vulgar Latin. Therefore, the Romanian verb a avea <\/strong>\u2018to have\u2019 is of Thrace-Dacia origin.<\/p>\n

5.ageiu<\/em> (ageu) \u2018let (him) act\u2019 (023, 045).\u00a0It is a cognate of Latin ago<\/em>, -re \u2018to drive\u2019 (IEW, 4). Other\u00a0 cognates are found in Greek and Sanskrit.\u00a0There are many derivatives of\u00a0 Latin ago. <\/em>It was not preserved in Romanian in this form, but the Proto-Indo-European root seems to be preserved in another Romanian verb, namely a alunga<\/strong> \u2018to drive away, to chase (away)\u2019 (cf. DELR, alunga<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

6.agnulo<\/em> \u2018kneeling \/ desolated \/ nulified\u2019 (011), ongeni<\/em> (ongenu) \u2018to kneel\/ on<\/p>\n

knees\u2019 (094).\u00a0These two Dacian verbs derive from PIE *g<\/strong>‘enu<\/strong>– *g<\/strong>‘neu<\/strong>– \u2018knee, angle, corner\u2019 (IEW, 380), specifically from *g<\/strong>‘neu<\/strong>-, suffixed by –ul-o<\/em>. One may notice that in Thraco-Dacian, PIE * g<\/strong>\u2019 > g which means Thraco-Dacian language was a centum<\/em> language and not a satem<\/em> one as it was senselessly repeated for about 200 years by various linguists.\u00a0In this case, it is obvious that Romanian genunchi<\/strong> \u2018knee\u2019 (and its derivatives) is of Thrace-Dacian origin.\u00a0The root is found in many Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, genunchi<\/strong>). Dacian city name Genucla<\/em> where Zamolxiu, <\/em>the Dacian prophet and god, <\/em>started his spiritual mission, as the Sinaia inscriptions tell us, seems to originate from the same root. Zamolxiu<\/em> (or Zamolxis in Greek spelling) was the one who founded the Dacias religion, around 900-1000 B.C.<\/p>\n

7.alo<\/em> (108) \u2018(they) increased, (they) grow\u2019 is a cognate of Latin alo<\/em> \u2018(I) nourish\u2019.\u00a0Both come from PIE * al<\/strong>– \u2018to grow, to feed\u2019 (IEW, 26).\u00a0Other cognates: Sanskrit an-ala<\/em> \u2018fire\u2019 (meaning \u2018the insatiate one\u2019), Old Irish\u00a0alim<\/em> \u2018(I) feed\u2019 and other Celtic languages.\u00a0It was not preserved in modern Romanian.<\/p>\n

8.amoas<\/em> (001) \u2018he liked it more\u2019, ami<\/em> \u2018in friendship\u2019 (084), cognate to Latin\u00a0amo<\/em> \u2018(I) love\u2019, amicus<\/em> \u201cfriend”, as well as Albanian\u00a0mik \u201cfriend” which is considered to be of Latin origin.<\/p>\n

9.amonuzis<\/em> (a monuzi) \u2018to entrust, to hand over, to deposit\u2019 (122).\u00a0This verb is a compound derived from moon<\/em>, mun\u00faa<\/em> \u2018hand\u2019: cf. Romanian m\u00e2n\u0103 \u2018<\/strong>hand\u2019, \u00eenm\u00e2na \u2018<\/strong>to entrust, to hand over (see below mun\u00faa<\/em> ‘hand’, Noun section).\u00a0The radical is found Italic, Celtic and old Germanic languages (cf. DELR, m\u00e2n\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

10.The forms aprociu<\/em> \u2018he\/she\/it was getting closer\u2019, apropeo<\/em> \u2018(that) he (she, it)was approaching (subj.)\u2019 are the ancestors of Romanian a (se) apropia<\/strong> \u2018to get closer, to appoach\u2019 and aproape<\/strong> \u2018close, near\u2019. It is a cognate of Latin\u00a0prope<\/em> \u2018close\u2019 < propro<\/em> \u2018near, next to\u2019 being an iterative form (cf. EDL, 492) and proximus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11.apucat iie<\/em> \u2018it was caught, captured\u2019 is the predecessor of Romanian a apuca<\/strong> \u2018to grab, to grasp\u2019 whose etymology gave much trouble to linguists, but basically it derives from PIE *ap<\/strong>– \u2018to grasp, to reach, to catch\u2019 (IEW, 50). The Thrace-Dacian form apucat<\/em> is identical to the Romanian past participle form of the verb a apuca<\/strong>. Cognates: Latin apiscor<\/em> \u2018to grasp, to reach\u2019, Sanskrit apnoti<\/em> \u2018to reach, to win\u2019 and other forms in various Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, apuca<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

12.asondio<\/em> \u2018to announce\/to (be) heard\u2019 (005, 126), asonigo<\/em> \u2018to celebrate, to invoke\u2019 (003), son<\/em>, sono<\/em> \u2018song\u2019 (008), sonu<\/em> \u2018signal, call, sound\u2019 (\u00a0040) are the predecessors of Romanian a suna \u2018<\/strong>to ring, to sound, to call\u2019, sunet<\/strong>\u2018sound\u2019. These Thraco-Dacian forms derive from PIE * suen<\/strong>– \u2018to to call, to resonate\u2019 (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 559; IEW, 1046). Indo-European cognates: Latin\u00a0sonare<\/em> \u2018to sound\u2019, Sanskrit svanati<\/em> \u2018to sound\u2019 (III sg), Old Irish son<\/em> \u2018noise\u2019, senna<\/em> \u2018to sound, to sing\u2019, Latvian sonnet<\/em> \u2018to grumble, to hum\u2019 and others (cf. DELR, suna<\/strong>).\u00a0Regarding the forms zvon <\/strong>\u2018rumor\u2019, a zvoni<\/strong> \u2018to be rumored\u2019 derive from the same radical Proto-Indo-European root. These last forms\u00a0 are\u00a0 considered to be of Slavic origin (cf. OCS zvon\u016d<\/em> \u2018sound\u2019), but given the Thrace-Dacian data, we may assume a Dacian origin as well (from a different dialect), although one may not exclude a Slavic origin for Romanian zvon<\/strong> (cf. DELR, zvon<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

13. au<\/em>, avio<\/em> (028, 106) \u2018wanted by, he (she) wanted more\u2019 cognate to Latinaveo<\/em> \u2018to want more\u2019 (Nicolaescu).\u00a0The forms come from a PIE *eu<\/strong>–e<\/strong>– \u2018to enjoy, to enjoy eating\u2019 (cf. de Vaan, 65). The verb was not preserved in Romanian.<\/p>\n

\u202815. cadu<\/em> (c\u0103zu<\/em>, c\u0103z\u00e2nd<\/em>) (he, she, it) \u2018he has fallen, descended\u2019 are precursor forms of Romanian a c\u0103dea \u2018to fall\u2019 considered to be of Latin origin, namely form Latin cado<\/em>, –ere<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 , which is, obviously, a cognate.\u00a0They derive from PIE *k<\/strong>‘ad<\/strong>– \u2018to fall\u2019 (IEW, 516). For cognates in other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, c\u0103dea<\/strong>, 191). These forms show that Dacian PIE *k<\/strong>\u2019 > k<\/em> which another proof that this language was a centum<\/em> languages and\u00a0 a satem<\/em> one.<\/p>\n

16. conetor<\/em> (019) \u2018a knowledgeable person,\u00a0 researcher\u2019.\u00a0Nicolaescu associates it with Latin commentor<\/em> \u2018to study\u2019. Dacian conetor<\/em> is akin to the Dacian forms conito<\/em> \/ cognito<\/em> (121) \u2018id\u2019.\u00a0associated by Nicoleascu with Latin cognitor \u2018<\/em>representative\u2019.\u00a0All these forms have their origin in PIE *gnosko<\/strong>– \u2018to know\u2019 (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 176)\u00a0 which comes close to Old Latin gnosco<\/em> and ancient Greek gnosko<\/em> (cf. DELR, 291).\u00a0Dacian conetor <\/em>has the suffix –tor <\/em>frequently fond in today\u2019s Romanian as a derivational suffix as in Latin, while conito<\/em> has the suffix –ito<\/em>, also found in Latin, Romanian and other Romance languages.<\/p>\n

17.cons<\/em> \/ concie<\/em> (114) \u2018assembly\u2019 a cognate of Latincontio <\/em>‘assembly meeting\u2019. According to de Vaan (132) Latin\u00a0contio <\/em>derives from PIE * g\u02b7mti<\/strong>– \u2018coming\u2019, a derivative of PIE *g\u02b7em<\/strong>– \u2018to come\u2019 with similar forms in German.\u00a0De Vaan’s hypothesis is not very plausible.<\/p>\n

18.corolo<\/em>, corolu<\/em>, coroleu<\/em> \u2018he crowns, crowned, crown\u2019 (052, 094, 098) are direct references to modern Romanian coroan\u0103<\/strong> \u2018crown\u2019, a \u00eencorona<\/strong> \u2018to crown\u2019, as well as a \u00eencununa<\/strong>, cunun\u0103<\/strong> with similar, but different meanings. All are considered to be of Latin origin, but they are rather cognates, as well as to Greek\u00a0\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018curved object\u2019.\u00a0All these forms derive from PIE * (s) ker<\/strong>– \u2018to bend\u2019 (IEW, 935).\u00a0The radical is very prolific in Romanian and in many other Indo-European languages.\u00a0Again these Romanian forms are not of Latin origin.<\/p>\n

19.canosca<\/em> \u2018to recognize\u2019 (022).\u00a0It is a predecessor form of the Romanian form a cunoaste<\/strong> \u2018to know, to recognize\u2019, very close to Old Latin\u00a0gnosco<\/em> and Greek \u00a0(Epirus dialect) \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9<\/em> \u2018(I) know\u2019 from PIE *gnosko<\/strong>– \u2018know (Walde-Hoffmann, II, 176).\u00a0Given a much larger number of data Walde-Pokorny reconstruct a PIE *g<\/strong>‘n\u0113<\/strong>-, g<\/strong>‘n\u014d<\/strong>– \u2018to know\u2019 (IEW, 376) widespread in Indo-European languages\u00a0(cf. DELR, cunoaste<\/strong>) (see conetor<\/em>, above).<\/p>\n

20.curgea<\/em> \u2018it was running, flowing\u2019, curs<\/em> \u2018the course of, time\u2019 (124) .These Thraco-Dacian forms are virtually identical in modern Romanian. It is assumed that\u00a0 Romanian verb a curge<\/strong> \u2018to flow, to run\u2019 derives\u00a0 from Latin curro<\/em>, cucurri<\/em> \u2018id\u2019.\u00a0In some idioms and dialects, there is the a cura<\/strong> which closer to Latin curro<\/em>. Ha\u015fdeu (Cuvente<\/em> … I, 421) and after him other linguists believe that the form a curge<\/strong> is rebuilt after other verbs such as a merge<\/strong> \u2018to go\u2019 in order\u00a0to avoid the homonymy with the noun cur<\/strong> \u2018annus\u2019.\u00a0 The assumption seems to be true, but one should add that the word is not of Latin origin and restructuring of the verb took place sometime in the Thrace-Dacian language, before the tragedy of 105-106 A.D. Note that as the Thraco-Dacian forms and meaning as in today\u2019s Romanian and they are cognates to the Latin verb. They all derive form PIE *kers<\/strong>– \u2018to run, to run away\u2019 (IEW, 583) (cf. DELR, curge<\/strong>). The form curgea<\/em> is found on the tablet 076 and appears in the following expression \u2018curgea songeli soruae<\/em>\u2019 (the blood was flowing in streams). Any native speaker of Romanian will easily understand this sentence (cf.\u00a0DELR, curgea<\/strong>, 294).<\/p>\n

21.dau<\/em> \u2018he\/she gave\u2019 (011), which is actually a past tense form, similar to the Romanian equivalent forms. The forms dato<\/em>, datu<\/em> \u2018given, donated, entrusted\u2019 (065, 079, 096) which the same to the Romanian past participle form dat<\/strong>.\u00a0All these forms derive from PIE *do<\/strong>-, d\u01dd<\/strong>-, dou<\/strong>– \u2018to give\u2019 (IEW, 223) with cognates in many Indo-European languages, including Latin (cf. DELR, da<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

22.deno<\/em>, denua,<\/em> \u2018he\/she confided \/ testified, revealed\u2019 (130-2).\u00a0It could be a compound word from the prefix de<\/em>– \u2018de-, des-\u2018 and the root –no<\/em>, –nu<\/em> whose meaning must be something like \u2018secret, mystery\u2019 or they derive from a root *den<\/strong>– , related to tain\u0103<\/strong> \u2018secret, mistery\u2019 which is considered to be of Slavic origin. I could not identify other Indo-European cognates.<\/p>\n

23.dicea<\/em> \u2018he\/she says (that)\u2019 (107), dizi<\/em> \u2018he\/she says, considers to\u2019 (013) podicea<\/em> \u2018after declaring, it can be said\u2019 (119), zice<\/em> (ziceo) \u2018he\/she is called”\u00a0(122) zicto<\/em> (zihto) \u2018by the one called\u2019 (025). All derive form a Thraco-Dacian root dic<\/em>-\/zic<\/em>-, the predecessor of the Romanian a zice<\/strong> \u2018to say\u2019.\u00a0The Latin\u00a0dico<\/em>, dicere<\/em> \u2018to indicate, to say\u2019. Other cognates are found in many Indo-European languages.\u00a0All come from PIE * deik’- \u2018to show, to indicate\u2019 (IEW, 188) (cf. DELR, zice<\/strong>). The alternation d \/ z is found in different Thraco-Dacian glosses as well as in the inscriptions of the Sinai tablets.<\/p>\n

24.disile<\/em> (106) ‘collapse, disappearance\u2019is a\u00a0 cognate of Latin \u00a0dissilo<\/em> \u2018to crack, to break into pieces\u2019 (Nicolaescu).<\/p>\n

(115) dorindu<\/em> \u2018they want\u2019 has the ending –indu<\/em> of the pers.\u00a0III, plural as avendu <\/em>\u2018they have\u2019 ( discussed above). The alternation e<\/em> \/ i<\/em> corresponds to the conjugations II and III which are reflected in various forms today’s Romanian forms of gerund. In the case of the third person plural these ending subsequently\u00a0 disappeared to eliminate confusion with the gerund form, also present in Thrace-Dacian language.\u00a0Thus, Romanian verbs of third person plural came to be identical either with the third person singular or with the first person singular, after this changes. The verb is found in the modern Romanian. From the same root derives the noun dor \u2018<\/strong>longing\u2019 an almost\u00a0 untranslatable word considered to be so specific to the Romanian spirituality. The noun dor<\/strong> is considered by older etymological dictionaries \u00a0to derive form Latin dolus<\/em> \u2018deceit, wickedness\u2019 which it is absolutely a ridiculous non-sense (cf. DELR, 326-27).<\/p>\n

25.edi<\/em> \u2018he\/she did, to do\u2019 (013, 076) derives from PIE * dhe<\/strong>– \u2018put, to place\u2019 (IEW, 235-38) with cognates in most Indo-European languages.\u00a0It seems to be be related with Aromanian adaru<\/em> \u2018(I) do\u2019 and modern Romanian\u00a0a deretica <\/strong>\u2018to do one\u2019s room\u2019, but the details are not clear (cf. DELR, 313).<\/p>\n

26.ede<\/em>, edo<\/em>, edu<\/em> ‘departure, chasing, to come, to go, to arrive\u2019 (002, 007, 106, 111, 115, 123,<\/p>\n

124-2, 127, 130)\u00a0, eide<\/em> \u2018proceed to\u2019 (023).\u00a0They are cognates with Latin eo<\/em>, ire<\/em> \u2018to go\u2019.\u00a0The root form appears also in compound forms such as gedi<\/em>, gedu<\/em> (ge + edo) (ge <\/em>< PIE * k\u02b7e<\/strong>) \u2019who came, where he came from\u2019 (098, 121).\u00a0This Thrace-Dacian root has many cognates in other Indo-European languages and not preserved in the Romanian language (it is found in Aromanian dialect spoken in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria), except for the interjection di<\/strong> \u2018urge horses set off\u2019 from an older *idi<\/em> or *edi<\/em>\u00a0(similar to the singular imperative form of the Latin ii < ire \u2018to go\u2019) by the elision of the initial vowel.All these forms derive from PIE * ei<\/strong>– * i<\/strong>– \u2018to go\u2019 (cf. EDL, 193).<\/p>\n

27.ema<\/em>, emao<\/em> \u2018they descend from, they originate from, origin, descent\u2019 (084-2) are cognates to Latin emano<\/em>, emanare<\/em> \u2018to come from, to originate from\u2019.\u00a0This word was not preserve in modern Romanian, but it is a modern loanword.<\/p>\n

28.facindu<\/em>, facsu<\/em>, factu<\/em>, fecuu<\/em>, fem <\/em>\u2018making (doing), he\/she made, they made\u2019 (040, 084, 118, 127, 137), as well as factice<\/em>, fact<\/em> \u2018deeds, acts\u2019 (028, 079) (003-\u00a02 025 130) or facu<\/em>, fact,<\/em> factu <\/em>\u2018decided, set up (the gods), faxu,<\/em> faxtu<\/em>, fokeso <\/em>\u2018let it be done, so be it !, decision (the Divine Will), onfaho<\/em> \u2018perform\u2019 (\u00a0106). All these forms are predecessor of Romanian verb a face<\/strong> \u2018to make, to do\u2019. The similarity with Latin facio<\/em> \u2018to make\u2019 is more than obvious. There are similar forms in other Italic languages : cf. Faliscan faced<\/em>, Oscan fakiiad<\/em>, Umbrian faciad<\/em>, fakust<\/em>, fakurent (III, pl. prefect future), Venete vha\u03c7sto<\/em>,\u00a0 all meaning \u2018to make, to do\u2019.\u00a0Linguists believe that these forms derive from PIE * dhe<\/strong>– \u2018to put, to place\u2019 (IEW, 235-38). It has been\u00a0 reconstructed a Proto-Italic\u00a0 root *fak<\/em>– *fek<\/em>– \u2018to do, to make\u2019, as well.\u00a0I have shown repeatedly that the Italic languages do not come from a Proto-Italic language, such a language never existed, since Italic languages are originally, either Thraco-Illyrian or Celtic dialects. The numerous Italics forms indicate that the same root existed in other Thraco-Illyrian or Celtic dialects (see DELR). In all Italic languages, the verbs deriving form this root mean \u2018to do, to make\u2019, not \u2018to put, to place\u2019 as in other Indo-European languages with which they are associated. In addition, I have shown the Thraco-Dacian form edi<\/em> \u2018he\/she did\u2019 (see above) derives from the same Proto-Indo-European root which Indo-Europeanists deemed the Italic forms derive from.\u00a0I believe the Italic forms and the Thraco-Dacian ones come from radically different type PIE * bhak<\/strong>– \u2018to do\u2019 (cf. DELR, face<\/strong>). It seems that Thrace-Dacian language made the distinction between \u2018to do\u2019 and \u2018to make\u2019 as English language does as well, unlike modern Romanian and other Romance languages.<\/p>\n

30.gatiste<\/em> \u2018(it) is prepared, (it) is ready\u2019 (040).\u00a0In this case, the suffix –iste <\/em>corresponds to the Romanian verbal suffix –este<\/strong> as Mr. Nicolaescu argues and not the derivative adverbial suffix of today\u2019s Romanian. The two suffixes are identical, but they are different from grammatical point of view.\u00a0 This verb is the same with Romanian gata<\/strong> \u2018(it is) ready\u2019 and its\u00a0 derivatives such as the verb a g\u0103ta<\/strong> \u2018to finish\u2019 and a g\u0103ti<\/strong> \u2018to cook\u2019.\u00a0These\u00a0 forms have cognates in Albanian, Slavic and Baltic languages (cf. DELR, gata<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

31.glotelu<\/em>, gloto<\/em> \u2018speech, speech, speech\u2019, agloeto<\/em> \u2018speech, speech\u2019 .These forms derive from PIE * g’hl\u0101d<\/strong>– \u2018to sound, to call\u2019 (IEW, 451) with cognates in the Old Irish,\u00a0Greek, Sanskrit and<\/p>\n

Avestan.\u00a0There are forms are the forerunners of Romanian glas<\/strong> \u2018voice\u2019, a gl\u0103sui<\/strong> \u2018to speak, to talk\u2019 (cf. DELR, glas<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

32.graveu<\/em> \u2018to give weight, gravity, strength\u2019 (079).\u00a0It is the forerunner of Romanian greu<\/strong> \u2018heavy\u2019, greutate<\/strong> \u2018weight\u2019. They derive form PIE * g\u02b7uer<\/strong>(\u01dd)- \u2018heavy\u2019 (Hoffmann-Walde, I, 621). Cognates: Latin\u00a0gravus<\/em> and many other Indo-European languages forms (cf. DELR, greu<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

33.grihio<\/em> \u2018(he\/she) takes care\u2019 (109) is the forerunner of\u00a0 Romanian grij\u0103<\/strong> \u2018care\u2019, a \u00eengriji<\/strong> \u2018to take care of\u2019 are considered to be Slavic loanwords in Romanian, but this root is not found in any\u00a0 Slavic languages , except for Bulgarian\u00a0gri\u017ea<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 which, under the circumstances, can only be a loanword from Romanian. Bulgarian language was heavily influenced by Romanian.<\/p>\n

34.lamfalosu<\/em> \u2018we were born \/ connected by umbilical cord\u2019 (011).\u00a0It is a form derived from a noun\u00a0*amfalo<\/em>, *omfalo<\/em>, a cognate\u00a0 of the Greek\u00a0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2<\/em> \u2018navel\u2019. It could be a loanword from Greek. Modern Romanian has the form buric <\/strong>\u2018navel\u2019, a cognate to the Greek form.<\/p>\n

35.logue<\/em>, logo, logue<\/em>, logiu<\/em> \u2018talking (to \/ with …) \/ (he\/she) spoke, speak, he\/she spoke \/ speech\u2019 (025, 072).\u00a0Cognates: Latin\u00a0loquor<\/em>, loqui<\/em>, both from PIE * tlok\u02b7<\/strong> \u2018to speak, to talk\u2019 (cf. EDL, 348). Romanian t\u00e2lc<\/strong> \u2018meaning, significance\u2019 derives form this root as well.<\/p>\n

36.a lotue<\/em> (lutue, lutie) \u2018he\/she will fight, he\/she have to fight” (045) may have the same origin as atlaito<\/em>, atlatoe<\/em> \u2018mythical fighters (of Atlantis, ?) (025, 079) and\u00a0 atleu<\/em> \u2018fighter, fight\u2019 (013) atlio<\/em> (atlu<\/em>) \u2018fighting\u2019 (091-2), but it rather seems to be a cognate of Latin \u00a0luctor<\/em>, luct\u0101ri<\/em>, both from PIE * lug-to<\/strong>– \u2018to crook, to bend\u2019 (EDL 350) (cf. atlaito<\/em>, atleu<\/em>, see infra, Noun section).<\/p>\n

37.lubese<\/em> \u2018a loved one\u2019 (098), lubiomu<\/em> \u2018beloved\u2019 (128). Cognates: Latin libet<\/em> and other Indo-European languages forms such as Germanic, Slavic, Celtic groups, etc.\u00a0There are forerunner forms of the Romanian verb a iubi<\/strong> \u2018to love\u2019 (DELR, iubi<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

38.masoratu<\/em> \u2018measured, numbered\u2019 (003) a forerunner of Romanian a m\u0103sura \u2018to measure\u2019 cognate of Latin mensura<\/em>, both from PIE *m\u0113<\/strong>– *met<\/strong>– \u2018to measure\u2019 (IEW, 703). Other cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, m\u0103sura<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

39.merge<\/em> \u2018alloy, fused\u2019 (106). It may be a cognate of Latin mergo, -ere \u2018to sink\u2019, although the meaning is different. However, Medieval Latin mergo<\/em> seems to have acquired the meaning of\u00a0 \u2018unite, merge\u2019 (cf. English merge<\/em> < Latin mergo<\/em>). It seems to be cognate Greek \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd<\/em> \u2018to melt\u2019 and Old English meltan<\/em> \u2018to melt, to consume\u2019, Old Norse melta<\/em> \u2018to devour\u2019 This root was not\u00a0 preserved in modern Romanian (not to be confused with the verb a merge<\/strong> \u2018to go\u2019).<\/p>\n

40.morire\u00a0 <\/em>\u2018to die\u2019 (016), the forerunner of the Romanian verb a muri<\/strong>, murire\u00a0 \u2018to die\u2019, cognates to Latin morire<\/em> \u2018id\u2019 and many other Indo-European languages forms, all from PIE * mer<\/strong>– \u2018to die * mrtis<\/strong> \u2018death\u2019 (IEW, 735) (cf. DELR, muri<\/strong>). Note infinitive suffix -re as in Latin and other Romance languages, including Romanian.<\/p>\n

41.meteu<\/em> \u2018to lodge, to deposit \/ to lay down\u2019 (007), remeso<\/em> \u2018to withdraw\u2019 (118). The second verb is a compound form consisting of the root met<\/em>-, prefixed with re<\/em>-. Both forms can be associated with French mettre<\/em> \u2018to put, to lay down\u2019. They seem to be cognates of Latin mitto<\/em> \u2018to let go, to send, to throw\u2019.<\/p>\n

42.oloto<\/em> (olo + to), olutu<\/em> \u2018he will be anointed (as a monarch)\u2019. It derives from the same root as Romanian ulei<\/strong> (oloi, oleu) \u2019oil\u2019. The root is found in most European Indo-European languages, all from Greek (Attic dialect) \u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd<\/em> \u2018oil\u2019. Obviously Romanian ulei<\/strong> (oloi, oleu) is a loan-word from Greek, in pre-Roman times.<\/p>\n

43.ondu \u2018it will be placed between, empowered\u2019 (028, 035, 062).a cognate to Latin induo<\/em> \u2018to put put something onto someone\u2019 (cf. Nicolaescu).<\/p>\n

44.onsocito<\/em> \u2018accompanied\u2019 (108), is a predecessor form of Romanian so\u021b<\/strong> \u2018husband, companion\u2019, a cognate of Latin socio<\/em> \u2018to unite\u2019, socius<\/em> \u2018ally\u2019. All derive from PIE *sok\u02b7i-s<\/strong> \u2018companion\u2019 < PIE * sek\u02b7<\/strong>– \u2018same, to follow, together\u2019 (Walde-Hoffmann, 2, 551; IEW, 896)<\/p>\n

45.oprito<\/em> \u2018stopped, hindered\u2019 (123) is a forerunner of Romanian a opri<\/strong> \u2018to stop\u2019, as well as a popri \u2018to withhold\u2019. Cognates: Albanian prap<\/em> \u2018(I) stop\u2019. The root is found in Slavic languages as well. The Romanian verb a opri<\/strong> \u2018to stop\u2019 is considered to be of Slavic origin, but this hypothesis is invalidated by this example.<\/p>\n

46.ova<\/em> \u2018we welcome \/ we rejoice\u2019 ((117), a cognates of Latin ovo,<\/em> -are \u2018rejoice, to celebrate\u2019. Forms are imitative nature.<\/p>\n

47.parcio<\/em> \u2018he\/she will spare, spare, cease, stop\u2019 can be associated with certain Germanic forms such as Old Norse spara<\/em>, Old English sparia<\/em>,\u00a0 English to spare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

48.paz<\/em>, pazu<\/em>, pazi<\/em>, pazieo<\/em> \u2018to defend, to protect\u2019 (158 etc.), pazo<\/em> \u2018defense\u2019 (128). These are predecessor forms of modern Romanian paz\u0103<\/strong> \u2018watch\u2019, a p\u0103zi<\/strong> \u2018to watch, to guard\u2019 were considered to be of Slavic since Miklosich (middle of 19th century). All this time, nobody challenged this \u2018etymology\u2019. Dja\u010denko cites Miklosich as the source in his Old Church Slavonic dictionary, but Miklosich \u2018reconstructed\u2019\u00a0 the \u2018Slavic\u2019 form using existing forms in Bulgarian and Polish. In fact, there is a similar form in Old Church Slavonic, namely paso<\/em>, pasti<\/em> which cannot be the etymon of the Romanian forms, but it is a cognate of the Thraco-Dacian and Romanian forms (cf. DELR, p\u0103zi<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

49. peghiseo<\/em> \u2018(have) sinned\u2019 (035) is a cognate of Latin pecc\u014d<\/em> \u2018to err, make a mistake\u2019 >\u00a0 peccatum<\/em> \u2018error, mistake\u2019. It is obvious that, although the root pre-existed in Thraco-Dacian, the Romanian noun p\u0103cat<\/strong> \u2018sin\u2019 is a loanword from Latin peccatum <\/em>\u2018id\u2019 as a Christian term. The verb a p\u0103c\u0103tui<\/strong> \u2018to sin\u2019 was rebuilt after p\u0103cat<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

50.pezi<\/em> \u2018to dismount, to colonize\u2019. Cognates: Greek \u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9<\/em> \u2018to walk\u2019 (translated by Nicolaescu by \u2018to dismount\u2019. If we can do this association, then Dacian pezi<\/em> may mean \u2018to start to walk, to be pedestrian\u2019, hence the alternate meanings of \u2018to dismount, to colonize\u2019 In this case, both forms derive PIE * ped<\/strong>– ‘foot’. Thus, Thraco-Dacian pezi<\/em> is the forerunner Romanian piez<\/strong> \u2018leg\u2019 (see DELR, piez<\/strong>, picior<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

51.pentu<\/em> \u2018signed, sealed\u2019 (035) is a cognate of Old Church Slavonic pe\u010datiti<\/em> \u2018to sign\u2019 which has the same origin with pisat\u2019<\/em> \u2018to write\u2019. There are other cognates in Baltic languages. All from PIE * peig<\/strong>– * peik<\/strong>– \u2018to color, to decorate\u2019 (IEW, 794). In other Indo-European languages the meaning is \u2018to paint, stain\u2019. The Thraco-Dacian\u00a0 form pentu<\/em> derives from a later Indo-European *pet<\/strong>-, from which seems to derive the Baltic and Slavic forms as well. It is certain that form these roots derive\u00a0 Romanian pat\u0103<\/strong> \u2018stain, blemish\u2019, a p\u0103ta<\/strong> \u2018to stain\u2019 as well as pag<\/strong> \u2018a horse with black or brown spots\u2019 (cf. DELR, pat\u0103<\/strong>, pag<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

52.perdutu<\/em> \u2018lost, perished\u2019 (045). It is the forerunner of Romanian a pierde<\/strong> \u2018to lose\u2019 a cognate of Latin perdere<\/em> \u2018id\u2019.<\/p>\n

53.petir<\/em> \u2018to attack\u2019 (115). It seems to be a cognate of Latin peto<\/em>, -ere \u2018to reach, to go to\u2019 <PIE *pt<\/strong>– (e<\/strong>) –i<\/strong>– \u2018to fly\u2019 (EDL, 463-64). Also, Venete –pe<\/em>– \u2018to ride\u2019. It was not preserved in Romanian.<\/p>\n

54.po<\/em>, pu<\/em>, pi<\/em>, pie<\/em>, pus<\/em>, pusere<\/em> \u2018to put, he\/she puts, to lay, imposed\u2019 (002, 003-2, 013-2, 121 031, 035, 045, 052-2 , 058, 062-2, 076, 079, 094, 109, 118, 119, 121-2, 124, 126, 134-2), poeno<\/em> \u2018they put\u2019 (072), pout<\/em> (put) \u2018they were placed, they sucked “(023) repunero<\/em> \u2018it is replaced by\u2019 (016), so ropus \u2018they were returned\u2019 (122) are cognate forms of\u00a0 Latin pono<\/em>, -ere \u2018to put\u2019 < * pozno<\/em> < * po<\/em>–sino<\/em> \u2018to put down\u2019 (EDL, 479). Therefore, forms in –n<\/em>– are later ones. On the tablets\u00a0 appears only once. In Umbrian is without nasal as in Dacian, namely perstu<\/em>, pestu<\/em> \u2018to put\u2019 (cf. EDL. 461). They are predecessor forms of Romanian a pune<\/strong> \u2018to put\u2019 (cf. DELR, pune<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

55.poio<\/em> (puo, pou), puto<\/em> \u2018he\/she can, it may\u2019 (002, 123) are cognates of Latin poteo<\/em>, -ere \u2018can\u2019, all from\u00a0 from PIE *poti-s<\/strong> \u2018householder, master, husband\u2019 (IEW, 842). Other cognates can be found in there Italic languages such as Umbrian putiiad<\/em>, putiians<\/em> \u2018can, may\u2019. Here and in other cases Thraco-Dacian forms may be abbreviated, a very frequent phenomenon in ancient inscriptions.<\/p>\n

56.popadu<\/em> (popadue) \u2018invaded, overran, trampled\u2019 (127). The root pad<\/em>– is found in today\u2019s Romanian in verbs such as n\u0103-p\u0103di <\/strong>\u2018to invade\u2019, pr\u0103-p\u0103di<\/strong> \u2018to destroy\u2019 and even n\u0103-pusti<\/strong> \u2018to rush\u2019 (as well as n\u0103-past\u0103<\/strong> \u2018misfortune\u2019 > a n\u0103p\u0103stui<\/strong>). In all cases we have the prefix n\u0103- and once pr\u0103-. All these verbs come from PIE * ped<\/strong>-, pod<\/strong>– \u2018foot\u2019 (IEW, 790), yielding a verb meaning \u2018to trample\u2019. Romanian verb a pr\u0103p\u0103di<\/strong> \u2018to destroy, to die\u2019 is considered of Slavic origin, namely from Old Church Slavonic propasti, propada \u2018to crack\u2019, but such a verb is not listed in Dja\u010denko\u2019s dictionary of Old Church Slavonic Slavic (cf. DELR, n\u0103p\u0103di<\/strong>, n\u0103pusti<\/strong>, pr\u0103p\u0103di<\/strong>). Therefore, all the verbs and nouns that contain this root may be considered o of Thraco-Dacian origin.<\/p>\n

57.porcedu<\/em>, purcedu<\/em>, purcesu<\/em>, purcedemu<\/em>, etc.\u2019to start, to proceed\u2019 (009-2, 021, 040, 062, 111, 126, 127, 129, 134), purcezundu<\/em> \/ porcezind <\/em>\u2018addressing, reviewing, watching\u2019\u00a0 are cognates of Latin procedere<\/em> a compound form from pro- <PIE * per<\/strong> \u2018over, too\u2019 (IEW, 810) and cedo<\/em> \u2018to go, to leave\u2019 (cf.DELR). In Thraco-Dacian PIE *per<\/strong> > pur<\/em>– as in today\u2019s Romanian purcede<\/strong> \u2018to proceed, to leave, to go\u2019. In DELR, I considered this Romanian verb to be of Latin origin.<\/p>\n

58.portu<\/em>, porton<\/em> \u2018carry\/to head to\u2019 (014, 096, 134) are predecessors of Romanian a purta<\/strong> \u2018to wear, to carry\u2019. It is a cognate of Latin porto<\/em> -are \u2018to carry, to bring\u2019, Umbrian purtatu<\/em>, portatu<\/em> (pers.II\/III, imp. II), portaia<\/em> (III, sg., subj.), portust<\/em> (III, sg., future perf.) \u2018to wear\u2019, as well as Sanskrit piparti \u2018to carry over\u2019, all from PIE *port<\/strong>–o<\/strong>– \u2018passage, crossover\u2019(EDL, 482-83). Also, Romanian poart\u0103<\/strong>, Latin porta<\/em> \u00a0 and Umbrian purtam<\/em> \u2018gate, door\u2019 derive form the same root.<\/p>\n

59.pradeo<\/em> \u2018to loot \/ to snatch\u2019 (069) is a cognate of Latin praeda<\/em> \u2018war booty\u2019 and Sanskrit pradhan<\/em> \u2018id\u2019, as well as Albanian prua<\/em> \u2018plunder\u2019 and a predecessor of Romanian prad\u0103<\/strong> \u2018plunder\u2019 and a pr\u0103da<\/strong> \u2018to plunder\u2019. Walde (II, 352) believes that Latin praeda<\/em> comes from PIE *dhe<\/strong>– \u2018to place, set\u2019 prefixed with prae<\/em>– (cf. DELR, prad\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

60.preto<\/em> \u2018treasured \/ to value\u2019 (002, 107) is the predecessor form of Romanian pre\u021b<\/strong> \u2018price\u2019 a cognate of Latin pretium<\/em> \u2018payment reward price\u2019, both forms of PIE * preti<\/strong>– \u2018against\u2019 (EDL 488).<\/p>\n

61.prinderoto<\/em> \u2018surrounded’ (0060, prinsu<\/em> \u2018caught, I swear\u2019 (111, 122-2). There seems to be cognate Latin praehendo<\/em> \u2018to catch\u2019. It is assumed that Romanian prinde<\/strong> < Latin praehendo<\/em>. In case that Nicolaescu\u2019s interpretation is correct, then we should rethink the etymology of this Romanian verb, but I have some doubts about this. In any case, –roto<\/em> should be associated with Romanian roat\u0103<\/strong> \u2018wheel\u2019 (cf. DELR, prinde<\/strong>, roat\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

62.rani<\/em> \u2018hurt\u2019 is the predecessor of Romanian ran\u0103 \u2018wound\u2019,\u00a0 a r\u0103ni<\/strong> \u2018to wound, to hurt\u2019 and it should be associated be with rana<\/em> \u2018wound\u2019, found in southern Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian), and Russian which seems to be a loanword from Romanian. Russian may borrowed it form Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian). Cognates in other Indo-European languages such as Albanian, Sanskrit and Avestan, all from PIE *\u016dorna<\/strong> \u2018wound, opening\u2019 (IEW, 1163). (cf. DELR, ran\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

63.retero<\/em>, retahio<\/em> \u2018removed, withdrawn, to be withdrawn, to move beyond\u2019 (009, 025, 076, 091, 134). It is a compound verb composed of the root ter<\/em>-, tah<\/em>– whose origin is difficult to identify. It may be associated with PIE * tragh<\/strong>– \u2018to draw, to pull\u2019 (IEW, 1089), but the evolution of the two forms is difficult to understand. We can not tell if the identification of the two forms is correct or not.<\/p>\n

64.rigoete<\/em>, roghiau<\/em> \u2018(they) pray \/ worship\u2019 (020, 065, 123), arezandu \u2018(they) dedicated to, to bring an offering\u2019 (094) airozanu \u2018prayer \/ Te Deum, vow, sacrifice, dedication\u2019 (094) are cognates of Latin rogo<\/em>, -are \u2018to pray\u2019 < PIE *rog-o \u2018<\/strong>stretching\u2019 (cf. EDL).<\/p>\n

65.ripondeo<\/em> \/ rupondeo<\/em> \u2018he\/she answered\u2019 (134) . The verb ripondeo<\/em> is related to with arpunsue<\/em> \u2018replied that\u2019. It means that either they belong to different dialects (or historical versions of the same language) or less likely, there are writing hesitations. Cognates: Latin respondio<\/em> < spondeo<\/em> \u2018to promise, to make a contract\u2019 < PIE *spondeje<\/strong>\/o<\/strong> \u2018to make libations several times\u2019 (EDL, 582)<\/p>\n

66.rometo<\/em>, romeso<\/em> \u2018to resolve, to sent\u2019 (006, 011, 022) seems to be a cognate of Latin trasmitto<\/em> < mitto \u2018to let go, to convey\u2019 < PIE *m<\/strong>(e<\/strong>)ith<\/strong>– \u2018to change, to replace\u2019 (EDL, 383-84).<\/p>\n

67.ropnistoe<\/em> \/ roponestoe<\/em> \u2018raped\u2019 (109-2) ropuso<\/em>, roposi<\/em> \u2018to kill, slain, killed\u2019, roposi<\/em> \u2018slain (pl.)\u2019 (069, 111), socirapto<\/em> \u2018breaking, taking away\u2019 (129). The first two forms appear on the tablet 109 and have the same meaning. Nicolaescu believes it is a compound\u00a0 form rop’ni sto \u2018k<\/em>ing lied on her\u2019. However, I believe it is not a compound form, but a verb that comes from the same root as Romanian a r\u0103pi<\/strong> \u2018to kidnap\u2019 along with a r\u0103pune<\/strong> \u2018to kill\u2019. The meanings of the forms ropuso<\/em>, roposi<\/em> confirm the hypothesis. Latin rapio<\/em>, rapere<\/em> means \u2018to kidnap\u2019 and \u2018to rape\u2019 as well as raptus<\/em> \u2018robbery, rape\u2019 (cf. English to rape<\/em> < Late Latin rapere<\/em>). All from PIE *rep<\/strong>– \u2018to snatch, to steal\u2019 (IEW, 865). There are other cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, r\u0103pi<\/strong>, r\u0103pune<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

68.ropto<\/em> \u2018separated, torn\u2019 (023) is a cognate of Latin rumpo<\/em> \u2018to break\u2019 from PIE * Hru-n-p<\/strong> (present) *Hreup<\/strong>– (aorist) \u2018to break\u2019. There are cognates in several Indo-European languages (cf. EDL, 529- 30). scete<\/em> \u2018to know, to find out\u2019 (130) is a cognate of Latin scio<\/em>, -ire \u2018to know\u2019 < PIE * sk-i(e\/o- \u2018<\/strong>to make an incision\u2019. I note that there are no cognates in other Romance languages, except for\u00a0 Romanian and Sardinian where the Latin influence was minimal.<\/p>\n

69.seat<\/em>, sede<\/em>, setu<\/em>, setue<\/em> \u2018to sit, to be seated, seated, enthroned\u2019 (015, 039, 108, 116), sidue<\/em> \u2018to sit, be seated\u2019 (072), asit seu<\/em> \u2018being seated at\u2019 (126) asetina<\/em> \u2018placed it (fem.), placed\u2019 (109, 123), sidue<\/em> \u2018to sit \/ be seated “(072) siado<\/em> (shadu) \u2018establishment\u2019 (116) sito<\/em> \u2018settlement, establishment, temple\u2019 (009, 128) .All these forms derive from PIE *sed<\/strong>– \u2018to sit\u2019 (IEW, 884). Romanian verbs a sedea<\/strong> \u2018to sit\u2019 and a aseza<\/strong> \u2018to place\u2019 derive from these Dacian verbal forms.<\/p>\n

70.sendu so<\/em> \u2018feeling that, admitting that\u2019, sendos<\/em> \u2018agreement, consent\u2019, cosendos<\/em> \u2018agreement \/ consent\u2019 (011, 040, 072) are cognates of Latin sentio<\/em>, -ire \u2018to feel\u2019 < PIE *snt-ie\/o<\/strong>– or *s\u00e9nti <\/strong>\u2018to notice’ (cf. EDL, 554).<\/p>\n

71.sochetu<\/em> \u2018he\/she counted \/ determined \/ considered\u2019 (108) is a predecessor of Romanian a socoti<\/strong> \u2018to calculate, to consider\u2019. Bulgarian sokotit\u2019 \u2018to take care, to guard\u2019 and Ukrainian sokotyty<\/em> \u2018to keep, to save\u2019 seem to be loanwords form Romanian, while Russian s\u010dot<\/em> \u2018calculation\u2019, s\u010ditati<\/em> \u2018to count, to consider\u2019 is a cognate.<\/p>\n

72.stopito<\/em> \u2018to stop, stopped, he\/it was stopped\u2019 (005, 006, 009-2, 062) is related to Romanian a astupa<\/strong> \u2018to occlude, to stop, to block\u2019 (which obviously does not derive from Vulgar Latin *adstuppare<\/em> as some linguists maintain) and dop<\/strong> \u2018stopper, cork\u2019. Cognates: Hittite i\u0161tap<\/em> \u2018to cover, to close, to plug\u2019, Latvian staupe<\/em> \u2018stopper, cork\u2019, all from PIE * (s)teup<\/strong>– \u2018to push, to to stop, toplug\u2019 (IEW, 1034) (cf. DELR, astupa<\/strong>, dop<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

73.sto<\/em>, stoe<\/em> \u2018to stay, be ready to\u2019 (016, 045, 106, 121-2) is the predecessor of\u00a0 Romanian a sta<\/strong> \u2018to stay, to stand\u2019 (and its derivatives). There are cognates in most of the Indo-European languages, besides Latin. All from from PIE *st\u0101<\/strong>-, *sta<\/strong>– \u2018to stay, to stand\u2019 (IEW, 1004).<\/p>\n

74.tecevo<\/em> (tecebo) \u2018to teach (them)\u2019 (079) seems to be a cognat\u00a0 Latin doce\u014d<\/em> \u2018to say, to inform, to learn\u2019 from PIE * dok<\/strong>–om<\/strong> \/ o<\/strong> \u2018to get someone to accept something\u2019 (EDL 176) with cognates in Hittite and Greek (cf. DELR)<\/p>\n

75.timie<\/em>, timieis<\/em> \u2018to fear, they fear\u2019 (072) is a cognate of Latin time\u014d \u2018<\/em>I fear,I am afraid\u2019 from PIE * tem<\/strong>– (Walde-Hoffmann, 682). Other cognates in\u00a0 Greek and Sanskrit (cf. DELR, 812).<\/p>\n

76.torehu<\/em> \u2018they descended\u2019 (019) may be associated with Romanian a t\u0103r\u0103g\u0103na <\/strong>\u2018to delay, a trage<\/strong> \u2018to draw, to pull\u2019, cognate to Latin traho<\/em>, trahere<\/em> \u2018to draw, to pull\u2019 (cf. DELR, trage<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

77.torso<\/em>, torsos<\/em> \u2018to return, return (to \u2026)’ (023, 115), turnato<\/em> \u2018the one who came back\u2019 (014). In some dialects of Romanian there is the form \u00eenturna<\/strong> \u2018to turn, to return\u2019 very close to Thraco-Dacian onturnu<\/em>, onturniu<\/em>, onturna<\/em> \u2018returned, to return\u2019 (002, 028, 069, 122), cognates to Latin tornare \u2018to turn, to return\u2019 < tornus<\/em>. Note that the famous phrase \u2018Torna<\/em>, torna fratre<\/em>\u2019 from 7th century, AD, may not not be a some kind of Vulgar Latin expression as it is commonly believed an not be considered Latin, the language. The Greek historian Theophanes who gives this expression said it belonged to the local speech (cf. DELR, \u00eentoarce<\/strong>). All these forms originate in PIE * terk<\/strong>– * tork<\/strong>– \u2018to twist, to turn\u2019 (IEW, 1077). In other words, both the Thraco-Dacian and (Romanian) and Latin have words serving from the root * tork<\/strong>-, torn<\/strong>-, but also in Greek. It is believed that Latin torno<\/em> < tornus<\/em> < Greek \u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2<\/em> \u2018compass, object to circles, circle\u2019, but it is a wrong assumption. One may see that both root forms are present in Thraco-Dacian and Romanian. The Greek form is isolated in Greek and it seems to be a loanword from Thracian or Illyrian. Beekes (EDG, II, 1495) argues that the Greek \u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 <\/em>derives from PIE * tor<\/strong>–no<\/strong>– which is actually a variant of * tork<\/strong>-, mentioned above.<\/p>\n

78.tram<\/em> \u2018bound, tied\u2019 (017)\u00a0 should be associated with Aromanian tram\u0103<\/strong> \u2018warp\u2019, not preserved in modern Romanian. However the root is present in the verb a destr\u0103ma<\/strong> \u2018to unravel, to unweave, to desintegrate\u2019. These forms are cognates to Latin trama <\/em>\u2018woof, weft\u2019.<\/p>\n

79.traso<\/em>, trasu<\/em>, treset<\/em> \u2018signed, written, drawn by\u2019 (005, 006, 011, 012, 022, 035, 040, 045, 052, 058, 065, 069, 072, 079, 092, 096, 121, 126, 129, 134) are derived forms of\u00a0 from the past participle of the verbal root *trag<\/em>– \u2018tp draw, to pull < PIE * tr\u0101gh<\/strong>– \u2018id\u2019 (IEW (1089). There are cognates in several Indo-European languages (see torehu<\/em>,\u00a0 above) .<\/p>\n

80.tuetie<\/em> \u2018he announced\/ trumpeted\u2019 (126). Onomatopoeic formation, similar to Romanian a tutui<\/strong> both from PIE * tu<\/strong>– * tu<\/strong>–tu<\/strong> \u2018it imitates a muffled or birds sounds\u2019 (IEW, 1097).<\/p>\n

81.uma<\/em> \u2018to bury, pits\u2019 (111), a cognate of Latin humo<\/em> \u2018to bury\u2019, Etruscan um<\/em> \u2018to bury\u2019 (cf. DELR, hum\u0103<\/strong>, om<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

82.upato<\/em> \u2018they subdued’ (129) is a compound verb and may be associated with Latin supponere<\/em> and Greek \u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9<\/em> \u2018to subdue\u2019 from PIE * upo<\/strong>-, * up<\/strong>– \u2018under, until\u2019 (IEW, 1106) and a verbal radical po<\/em>, pu<\/em> \u2018to put\u2019 (see above) and –to<\/em> is a verbal suffix indicating a past form.<\/p>\n

83.va<\/em> \u2018to come\u2019 (028), vado<\/em> \u2018to go\u2019 (006), with Latin vado<\/em> \u2018to leave, to go\u2019. The radical was kept in Romanian va<\/em> in the phrase \u2018mai va<\/strong>\u2019.<\/p>\n

84.vacuren<\/em> (vachiren) \u2018he left\/deserted\u2019 (014) vacuto<\/em> \u2018vacant\u2019 (119) is cognate Latin vaco<\/em>, –are<\/em> \u2018to empty\u2019\u00a0 < PIE * u<\/strong>(e<\/strong>)ko<\/strong>-(EDL 649) have cognates in other Italic languages: Umbrian\u00a0 ander.vakaze<\/em>, ander.uacose<\/em> \u2018to interrupt\u2019. This Dacian verb was not preserved in Romanian.<\/p>\n

85.varu<\/em> \u2018they returned\u2019 (009) derives from the same root as Romanian\u00a0 a (se) \u00eenv\u00e2rti<\/strong> (and its derivatives) < PIE * \u016dert<\/strong>– \u2018to spin, to rotate\u2019 (IEW, 1156) with Cognates in Latin and other Indo-European languages (cf. DELR, \u00eenv\u00e2rti<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

86.veiu<\/em> \u2018will care \/ will watch\u2019 (045) is to be associated with Romanian a veghea <\/strong>(and its derivatives). They derive from PIE * \u016deg<\/strong>‘-e<\/strong>– \u2018to be strong, to thrive” (EDL, 677). Cognate in Latin, Sanskrit and Germanic languages (cf. DELR, veghea<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

87.veso<\/em> (v\u0103zu) \u2018he saw, observed\u2019 (076) iveru<\/em> \u2018it is obvious (that)\u2019 (013), is the predecessor of Romanian a vedea<\/strong> and cognate to Latin videre<\/em>, both from PIE * \u016dedi<\/strong>– \u2018to perceive, to see\u2019 (IEW, 1125). The root is present in many other Indo-European languages. This Thraco-Dacian form corresponds to perfect form of today\u2019s Romanian language (cf. DELR, vedea<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

88.vetoe<\/em> \u2018they oppose\u2019 (045) is cognate of Latin veto<\/em> \u2018to prohibit\u2019 < PIE * \u016det<\/strong>– * \u016dot<\/strong>– \u2018to speak, to say\u2019 (EDL, 672). Although this verb not preserved in Romanian language, preserved in the Romanian noun votru<\/strong> ‘spokesman, mediator, matchmaker\u2019 (fem. vru\u021b\u0103<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

89.voie<\/em>, voiu<\/em>, voisu<\/em> \u2018he\/they want\u2019 (026, 029, 1270, voiu<\/em>, voie<\/em> \u2018will, the will\u2019 (045, 080, 122), voru<\/em> \u2018they want, the will\u2019 < PIE * \u016del<\/strong>-,* \u016dol<\/strong>– \u2018to want\u2019 (IEW, 1137). Most of these forms can be found in today\u2019s Romanian with the same meaning. There are cognates Latin, Germanic and Slavic languages (cf. DELR, vrea<\/strong>, voi<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

90.zerind<\/em> \u2018they spotted, glimpsing\u2019 (111) is the predecessor of Romanian z\u0103ri <\/strong>\u2018to glimpse, to sight\u2019. Cognates: Latin seruo<\/em> (obseruo \u2018to notice\u2019 and Lithuanian \u017euru, \u017eureti<\/em> \u2018to look, to noice\u2019.<\/p>\n

91.zimzu<\/em> \u2018they were singing, humming\u2019 is imitative formation verb such as today\u2019s Romanian a zumz\u0103i<\/strong> \u2018to hum, to buzz\u2019.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

REFERENCES:<\/p>\n

Arbois de Jubainville, Henri d\u2019, Les premiers habitants de l\u2019Europe d\u2019apres des \u00e9crivains de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et les travaux des linguistes<\/em>, Paris, 1889-1894.<\/p>\n

BA: Balkan-Archiv. Fortsetzung des Jahresberichtes des Instituts f\u00fcr rum\u00e4nischen Sprache<\/em>, Leipizig, 1 (1924) \u2013 4 (1928).<\/p>\n

B\u00e2rzu, L., Continuitatea popula\u0163iei autohtone \u00een Transilvania \u00een sec. IV<\/em>–V<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, 1973.<\/p>\n

BL: Bulletin Linguistique<\/em>, Bucarest-Paris, 1 (1933) \u2013 4 (1938).<\/p>\n

Blagova, E., Ceitlin, R.M., Ve\u010derki, R., Staroslaveanski slovar\u012d (po rukopiseam 10-11 vekov)<\/em>, Moscova \u201eRusski jazyk\u201d, 1994.<\/p>\n

Brugmann, K., Elements of the comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages: A concise exposition of the History of Sanskrit<\/em>, Old Iranian… Old Armenian<\/em>, Old Greek<\/em>, Latin<\/em>, Umbrian-Samnitic<\/em>, Old Irish<\/em>, Gothic<\/em>, O<\/em><\/p>\n

Bulg\u0103r, Gh., Constantinescu-Dobridor, Gh., Dic\u0163ionar de arhaisme \u015fi regionalisme<\/em>, Saeculum Vizual, Bucure\u015fti, 2005.<\/p>\n

Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d\u2019\u00e9tymology daco<\/em>–roumaine<\/em>, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879).<\/p>\n

Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacic\u0103 la cea rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, Editura Eurostampa, Timi\u015foara, 2006.<\/p>\n

Candrea, I.A., Densusianu, O., Dic\u0163ionarul etimologic al limbii rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, (a-putea), Bucure\u015fti, 1907-1914.<\/p>\n

Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Genes, Peoples and Languages<\/em>, Nort Point Press, New York, 2000.<\/p>\n

Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire \u00e9tymologique de la langue grecque<\/em>. Histoire de mots<\/em>, Klincksieck, Paris,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1968-1980.<\/p>\n

Cihac, A., Dictionnaire d\u2019\u00e9tymology daco<\/em>–roumaine<\/em>, Frankfurt (2 vol.), 1870-1879.<\/p>\n

Cionchin, A.C., Cionchin, I., De la scrierea dacic\u0103 la cea rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, Editura Eurostampa, Timi\u015foara, 2006.<\/p>\n

Copeland, M., Introduction to the Etruscan language<\/em> (Academia.edu).<\/p>\n

Cioranescu, A., Diccionario etimologico rumano<\/em>, Madrid, 1958.<\/p>\n

Colson, F., Nationalit\u00e9 et r\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9ration des paysans moldovalaques<\/em>, Paris, Dentu, 1862.<\/p>\n

Corominas, J. & Pascual, J.A, Diccionario cr\u00edtico etimol\u00f3gico castellano e hisp\u00e1nico<\/em>, Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1987.<\/p>\n

Cortelazzo, M. & Marcato, C., I dialetti italiani<\/em>, Dizionario etimologico<\/em>, UTET (Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese), Torino. 1998.<\/p>\n

DAR: Dic\u0163ionarul Academiei Rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, 1913-1940 (a-lep\u0103da).<\/p>\n

DELR: Vinereanu, M., Dic\u021bionar Etimologic al Limbii Rom\u00e2ne – pe baza cercet\u0103rilor de indo-europenistic\u0103<\/em>, Alcor Edimpex, Bucur\u0219ti, 2008<\/p>\n

Densu\u015fianu, N., Dacia preistoric\u0103<\/em>, Editura Meridiane, Bucure\u015fti, 1986.<\/p>\n

Diez, F., Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch der romanischen Sprachen<\/em>. Dritte Auflage<\/em>, Bonn, 1869.<\/p>\n

Dja\u010denko, Polnyi cerkovno<\/em>–slaveanski slovar\u012d<\/em>, Moscova, \u00een \u201eTerra kni\u017eyi Klub\u201d (2 vol.), 1998.<\/p>\n

Dolgopolski, A.B., The Indo-European homeland and lexical contacts of Proto-Indo-European with other languages<\/em>, \u00een \u201eMediteranean Language Review\u201d, 3, 1988, pp. 7-31.<\/p>\n

Dolgopolski, A.B., The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Paleontology<\/em>, The McDonald Institute for Archeolgical Research, Cambridge, England, 1998.<\/p>\n

EDG: Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2010.<\/p>\n

EDL: de Vaan, M. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2008.<\/p>\n

Georgiev, V., Le dace comme substrat de la langue roumnaine,<\/em> \u00een \u201eRevue roumaine de linguistique\u201d, 10, 1965, pp. 75-80.<\/p>\n

Golab, Z., \u201cKentum\u201d elements in Slavic<\/em>, \u00een \u201eLingua Posnaniensis\u201d, 16, 1972, pp. 53-82.<\/p>\n

Goodenough, W.H., The evolution of pastoralism and Indo<\/em>–European Origins<\/em>, \u00een Cardona, G., Hoenigswald, H.M. & Senn, A. (ed), Indo<\/em>–European and Indo<\/em>–Europeans<\/em>, University of Pennsylvania Press,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Philadelphia, 1970.<\/p>\n

Hasdeu, B.P., Magnum etymologicum Romaniae. Dic\u0163ionarul limbii istorice \u015fi poporane a Rom\u00e2nilor<\/em>, (a-b\u0103rbat), Bucure\u015fti (4 vol.), 1886-1868.<\/p>\n

Herodot, Histories of Herodotus<\/em>, London, New York, 1964.<\/p>\n

IEW<\/em>: Walde, A., Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Bern, M\u00fcnchen<\/p>\n

Iordanes, The Gothic history of Jordanes<\/em>, Barnes & Noble, Cambridge, New York, 1960.<\/p>\n

Lehmann, W. P., A Gothic Etymological Dictionary<\/em>, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1986.<\/p>\n

Lidell, H., Scott, R., Greek<\/em>–English Lexicon<\/em>, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.<\/p>\n

Miklosich, F., Die Slawischen Elemente in Rum\u00e4nischen<\/em>, \u00een \u201eDenkschriften\u201d, XII, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Viena, 1862.<\/p>\n

Orel, V., Albanian etymological Dictionary<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, 1998.<\/p>\n

Orel, V., A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language<\/em>, Brill, Leiden, Boston, K\u00f6ln, 2000.<\/p>\n

O\u0163etea, A. et al., Istoria lumii \u00een date<\/em>, Editura enciclopedic\u0103 rom\u00e2n\u0103, Bucure\u015fti, 1972.<\/p>\n

Ovidiu, Naso Publius, Tristia, Ex Ponto<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1965.<\/p>\n

Priscus, Panites, Ambasadele<\/em> \u00een Izvoarele Istoriei Rom\u00e2niei<\/em>, vol. II, Bucure\u015fti, 1964.<\/p>\n

Procopius din Caesarea, History of Wars<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.<\/p>\n

Procopius din Caesarea, De Aedificiis<\/em> Iustiniani Imperatoris<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, 1992-1998.<\/p>\n

Puhvel, J., Hittite Etymological Dictionary<\/em>, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1984.<\/p>\n

Pulgram, E., The tongues of Italy. Prehistory and history<\/em>, Harvard Unviersity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.<\/p>\n

Pu\u015fcariu, S., Etymologisches W\u00f6rtebuch der rum\u00e4nischen Sprache<\/em>. I. Lateinische Elemente<\/em>, Heidelberg, 1905.<\/p>\n

Reichenkron, G., Das Dakische<\/em> (reconstruiert aus dem Rum\u00e4nischen), Heidelberg, 1966.<\/p>\n

REW: Meyer-L\u00fcbke, W. Romanisches etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Carl Winter Universit\u00e4tverlag, Heidelberg, 1972.<\/p>\n

Russu, I.I., Elemente autohtone \u00een limba rom\u00e2n\u0103; substratul comun rom\u00e2no-albanez<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1970.<\/p>\n

Tagliavini, C., Le origine delle lingue neolatine<\/em>, Bologna, 1959.<\/p>\n

Thesaurus linguae latinae<\/em>, Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vidobonensis, Lipsiae, In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1900-.<\/p>\n

Van Windenkens, A.J., Essai sur une indo<\/em>–europeene pr\u00e9helenique<\/em>, Louvain, 1952.<\/p>\n

Varro, M.T., De lingua latina<\/em>, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. (English-Latin), 1951.<\/p>\n

Vasmer, M., Russisches Etymologisches W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, Heidelberg, 1953-1955.<\/p>\n

Vasmer, M., Etimologi\u010deski slovar\u012d russkogo jazyka<\/em>, Moscova, Progress (4 vol.), 1986-1987.<\/p>\n

Vinereanu, M., Originea traco<\/em>–dac\u0103 a limbii rom\u00e2ne<\/em>, Pontos, Chi\u015fin\u0103u, 2003.<\/p>\n

Vinereanu, M. Dic\u021bionar etimologic al limbii rom\u00e2ne, Alcor Edimpex, 2008, Bucure\u0219ti.<\/p>\n

Walde, A. and Hoffmann, J.B., Lateinisches etymologisches<\/em> W\u00f6rterbuch<\/em>, I+II, Heideberg, Karl Winter<\/p>\n

Zaharia, E., Popula\u0163ia rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 din Transilvania \u00een sec. VII<\/em>–VIII<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1977.<\/p>\n

Zaharia, E., S\u0103p\u0103turile de la Dridu<\/em>, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, Bucure\u015fti, 1967.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There have been and there is still much controversy about the origin of Romanian language and people originating either from bad faith or ignorance.\u00a0Basically, it comes down to two hypotheses:\u00a0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30,6],"tags":[115,11,116,117,118,32,119,120,121,122],"class_list":["post-764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-linguistics","category-linguistics-archive","tag-history-of-romanian-language","tag-indo-european-languages","tag-italic-languages","tag-latin","tag-proto-indo-european-language","tag-romanian-language","tag-sinaia-tablets","tag-thrace-dacian-language-etymologies","tag-thraco-dacian-as-the-sole-parent-language-of-romanian","tag-thraco-dacian-language"],"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":30,"label":"Linguistics"},{"value":6,"label":"Linguistics Archive"}],"post_tag":[{"value":115,"label":"history of Romanian language"},{"value":11,"label":"Indo-European languages"},{"value":116,"label":"Italic languages"},{"value":117,"label":"Latin"},{"value":118,"label":"Proto-Indo-European language"},{"value":32,"label":"Romanian language"},{"value":119,"label":"Sinaia tablets"},{"value":120,"label":"Thrace-Dacian language etymologies"},{"value":121,"label":"Thraco-Dacian as the sole parent language of Romanian"},{"value":122,"label":"Thraco-Dacian language"}]},"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"Mihai Vinereanu","author_link":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/author\/mihai-vinereanu\/"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":30,"name":"Linguistics","slug":"linguistics","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":30,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":13,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":30,"category_count":13,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Linguistics","category_nicename":"linguistics","category_parent":0},{"term_id":6,"name":"Linguistics Archive","slug":"linguistics-archive","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":6,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":13,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":6,"category_count":13,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Linguistics Archive","category_nicename":"linguistics-archive","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":115,"name":"history of Romanian language","slug":"history-of-romanian-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":115,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":11,"name":"Indo-European languages","slug":"indo-european-languages","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":11,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":116,"name":"Italic languages","slug":"italic-languages","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":116,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":117,"name":"Latin","slug":"latin","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":117,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":118,"name":"Proto-Indo-European language","slug":"proto-indo-european-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":118,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":32,"name":"Romanian language","slug":"romanian-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":32,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":4,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":119,"name":"Sinaia tablets","slug":"sinaia-tablets","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":119,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":3,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":120,"name":"Thrace-Dacian language etymologies","slug":"thrace-dacian-language-etymologies","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":120,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":121,"name":"Thraco-Dacian as the sole parent language of Romanian","slug":"thraco-dacian-as-the-sole-parent-language-of-romanian","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":121,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":122,"name":"Thraco-Dacian language","slug":"thraco-dacian-language","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":122,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/764","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limbaromana.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}